Friday, January 15, 2016

Joe Konrath and I have some fun
over at his blog with the notion that “Big Five” dominance is better for
freedom of expression than any author being able to publish any book for any
reader. My portion here; the whole thing over at Joe’s
blog…

Because, come on, putting your tendentious
conclusion right there in the title and disguising it as a question, while an
impressively textbook instance of question-begging,
in this context is also pretty funny. Because, “Hey, we’ve already established
that Amazon is a monopoly; we’re just here to determine how much of a threat
the company poses to Freedom and All That Is Good. Is it an existential threat,
like Roger
Cohen said about ISIS? Or merely an extremely threatening threat?”

And who knows, maybe they’ll
answer the question, “No,” right? Maybe the panelists will decide that Amazon’s
“book monopoly” is actually a benefit
to freedom of expression, as monopolies often are. It’s not as though they’ve
structured things so that the question answers itself, and I don’t know why
anyone would suspect this panel might be anything other than a diverse
collection of open-minded people honestly engaging in free inquiry and the
pursuit of knowledge wherever the facts may lead!

Thanks to the efforts of
serious-sounding organizations like New America (and if that vague but
happy-sounding name didn’t cause your bullshit detector to at least tingle, it
should—see also Americans
for Prosperity and the Center
for American Progress), this “Amazon is a Monopoly” silliness is so
persistent that Joe and I dealt with it in our inaugural
post on zombie memes—“arguments that just won’t die no matter how many
times they’re massacred by logic and evidence.” Half the purpose of the Zombie Meme
series is to save Joe and me from having to repeat ourselves, so if you want to
have a laugh about why, despite its persistence, “Amazon is a Monopoly”
is so embarrassingly dumb and misguided, here’s
your link.

But here’s the amazing part: “Amazon
is a monopoly” is actually the clever
half of the event’s title. The really funny part is what follows: that Amazon
poses a threat to freedom of expression!

Given that Amazon’s self-publishing platform enables all authors
to publish whatever they like and leaves it to readers to decide what books
they themselves find beneficial, while the New York Big Five (no concentrated
market power in a group with a name like that!) has historically rejected
probably 999 books for every one they deem worthy of reaching the public, a few
questions present themselves. Such as:

•Who has really been “manipulating and supervising the sale of
books and therefore affecting the exchange of ideas in America,” and who has
really “established effective control of a medium of communication”—an entity
that screens out 99.9% of books, or one that has enabled the publication of any
book?

•Who has really been running an uncompetitive, controlled,
supervised, distorted market for books—a company dedicated to lower prices, or
a group calling itself the Big Five that has been found guilty of conspiracy and price
fixing?

•Who is really restoring freedom of choice, competition,
vitality, diversity, and free expression in the American book market—an entity
that consigns to oblivion 999 books out of a thousand, or one that enables the
publication of all of them?

•And who is really ensuring that the American people determine
for themselves how to take advantage of the new technologies of the 21st
Century—an entity responsible for zero innovation and dedicated to
preserving the position of paper, or one that has popularized a new publishing
and reading platform that for the first time offers readers an actual choice of
formats?

Think about it. This “New America”
organization has put together a panel dedicated to persuading you that there
was more freedom of expression when
an incestuous group of five Manhattan-based corporations held the power to
disappear 999 books out every thousand written, and indeed performed that
disappearance as the group’s core function (they call this “curation”). And
that, now that Amazon’s KDP platform has enabled all authors to publish virtually anything they want, freedom of expression is being threatened.

For an organization calling itself “New
America,” these jokers sure seem wedded to the old version.

In fairness to New America, I
should note that their worldview is hardly unprecedented. The notion that the
traditional way of doing things is ipso facto the best way of doing things was
lampooned by Voltaire over 150 years ago through his character Dr. Pangloss,
who was convinced (before experience in the world introduced doubts) that “All is for the best in this best
of all possible worlds.” And Pangloss was himself based on the religious philosophy
known as theodicy—a word
coined over 300 years ago to describe a kind of faith that’s doubtless as old
as the human race (and a word I admit I like because it sounds a bit like
“idiocy”).

In fact, it was as recent as, say,
the 1950s that a group of tweed-jacketed, straight white male college
professors were genuinely convinced that the collection of books they deemed
the most intrinsically worthy—all, coincidentally, written by other straight
white males—represented the maximally possible amount of valuable expression,
information, and ideas. They even called their collection the “canon,” which I
admit did tend to make their subjective choices sound important and even
divinely ordained. As people came to question the absence of women and minority
writers from this collection selected exclusively by straight white males, I
imagine the straight white males genuinely believed that broadening the “canon”
to include women and minorities was a threat to freedom of expression and all
that. This is just the way a lot of people are wired, especially when status
and privilege are part of the mix.

And really, you do have to take a
moment to applaud the mental gymnastics required of otherwise presumably intelligent
people to say shit like “more authors writing more books reaching more readers
is threatening freedom of expression, the flow of information, and the
marketplace of ideas.” It’s War is Peace/Ignorance is Strength/Freedom is
Slavery level doublethink. On the one hand, it’s sad, but on the other hand, in
all the universe could there be a race as capable as humans of clinging so
resolutely to faith in the face of so many contrary facts? Seen in this light,
there’s something tragically beautiful about it.

And while I admit that New
America’s “day is night, black is white” bizarro worldview isn’t easy to
parody, I can’t resist trying. So…

Coming up next from New America: The Internet’s Dictatorial Grip: Impeding
Access to Information? And The Tyranny
of the Cell Phone: Shutting Down Communication? And Our Addiction to Paved Roads: A Threat to Freedom of Movement?

One more thing about this event
that’s unintentionally hilarious, and then I need to get back to something
worthwhile (AKA, the new manuscript). Take a look at the guest
list. If you hired a team of NASA scientists to design the most rabidly,
incestuously anti-Amazon panel possible, this is pretty much the group the team
would propose. Though I doubt even the scientists (assuming they had a little
dignity) would have gone to far as to bring in Douglas
Prestonand his literary agent, Eric
Simonoff. I mean, this is getting pretty close to just adding clones of
existing panelists and eliminating the last fluttering fig leaf of diversity.

They also have the
dean of the Amazon Derangement crowd, Scott
Turow. And Franklin Foer, who in
fairness should be disqualified from even being on this panel because of his claim—in
his much-derided “Let us kneel down before Amazon” screed—that “That term
[monopoly] doesn’t get tossed around much these days, but it should”!

By the way, I wouldn’t be
surprised if Foer makes the same cringe-worthy claim again, on this very “Amazon
is a Monopoly” panel. The anti-Amazon crowd has never been particularly
educable.

Also present will be Mark Coker,
the head of Smashwords, an Amazon
competitor. And author Susan Cheever, a member of Authors United, an
organization that represents pretty much the platonic ideal of Amazon
Derangement Syndrome. A couple of anti-trust lawyers to provide a veneer of
legal gravitas (and to troll for clients, no doubt). And a second-year law
student named Lina Khan who has argued that Amazon “should
alarm us.”

And that’s it. That’s as diverse
and wide-ranging as the lineup gets. The full gamut of viewpoints, from A…all
the way to B.

Although really, even that feels a
little generous.

Oh, by the way, Eric Schmidt,
Executive Chairman of Google, another Amazon competitor, is the chairman of New
America’s board of directors, too. No conflict of interest there. Nothing to
disclose to anyone who might think this is some sort of disinterested,
scholarly event.

So yeah, it’s really that much of
a hive-mind lineup. But that’s not even the best part. The best part is, this
remarkably insular and incestuous exercise in groupthink has been assembled to
speak out against a purported threat to…freedom of expression! The flow of
information! And the marketplace of ideas!

None of this is an accident, by
the way. It isn’t just stupidity and incompetence. There’s a reason
organizations will try to take a narrow outlook and propagate it through
multiple mouthpieces: doing so can create the impression that a rare and
radical notion is in fact widely held—held even by ostensibly disparate groups—and
therefore more trustworthy. Indeed, this form of propaganda is a favorite of some
of the same reactionary groups New America is showcasing on its panel. As I
said recently about the supposedly “unprecedented
joint action” of some booksellers, authors, and agents complaining together
about Amazon:

Which brings
us to the second revealing aspect of this “propaganda masquerading as an
interview” drill. You see, in the standard “blow-job masquerading as interview”
gambit, it’s generally enough to hope the reader will just assume the
interviewer and interviewee are working at arms-length. Making the point
explicitly isn’t really the done thing. Here, however, perhaps not trusting
readers to be sufficiently gulled, the ABA and AG are at pains to describe the “unprecedented
joint action” of the AG, Authors United, the ABA, and the Association of
Authors’ Representatives in going after Amazon formonopolizing the marketplace of ideas,devaluing books, and generallycrushing dissent, democracy, and all that is good. The impression they’re trying to create
is, “Wow, if so many separate organizations hate Amazon, Amazon must be
doing something bad.”

But what’s
critical to understand is thatthe most fundamental purpose of the Authors Guild, Authors United, the American Booksellers
Association, and the Association of Authors is to preserve the publishing
industry in its current incarnation. Whatever marginal differences they
might have (I’ve never actually seen any, but am happy to acknowledge the
theoretical possibility) are eclipsed by this commonality of purpose. Under the
circumstances, the fact that these four legacy publisher lobbyists agree on
something is entirely unremarkable (indeed, what would be remarkable would be
some evidence of division). But if people recognize the exercise as a
version of “No really, I read it somewhere…okay, I wrote it down first,” the
propaganda fizzles. And that’s why these propagandists have to nudge readers
with the bullshit about the “unprecedented joint action.” Otherwise, when
Authors Guild Executive Director Mary Rasenberger cites Authors United pitchman
Doug Preston as though Preston were a separate, credible source, people might
roll their eyes instead of nodding at the seriousness of it all. They might
even giggle at the realization that all those “When did Amazon stop beating its
wife?” questions were functionally being put by Rasenberger to herself.

So no, this
wasn’t remotely a cross-examination, or even a cross pollination (indeed,
publisher lobbyists are expert atfleeing
anything that offers even the slightest whiff of actual debate—which does make
their alleged devotion to the Free Flow of Ideas and Information as the Engine
of Democracy worthy of a smile, at least, if nothing else). It was just a stump
speech lovingly hosted by someone else’s blog. The sole reason for the exercise
was to create the misleading appearance of multiple, arms-length actors when
functionally there is only one.

In fairness
to the aforementioned Unprecedentedly Joint Actors, there is arich heritage
behindthis form of propaganda. For example, in the run-up to America’s second Iraq war, Dick Cheney
would have someone from his office phone up a couple of pet New York Times
reporters, who would then dutifully report that anonymous administration
officials believed Saddam Hussein had acquired aluminum tubes as part of his
nuclear weapons efforts…and then Cheney would go on all the Sunday morning talk
shows and get to say, “Don’t take my word for the aluminum tube stuff—even the New
York Times is reporting it!”

So leave aside the fact that the “joint
action” in question isanything but unprecedented—that it is in factpublishing establishment SOP. Anyone familiar with the record of these organizations will instantly
realize that the “unprecedented joint action” in question is a lot like the “joint
action” of all four fingers—plus the thumb!—of someone throwing back a
shot of tequila. Like that of a little boy pleasuring himself—with both
hands!—and trying to convince anyone who will listen that the Unprecedented
Left and Right Action is proof that “Everybody loves me!”

Okay, I apologize for the multiple
excerpts from previous posts. But what are you going to do? These bloviators
keep vomiting up the same tired bullshit, no matter how many times it’s
debunked. It just saves time to refer to the previous debunkings rather than
typing it all out again.

My advice to New America? If
you’re more than just a propaganda operation—if you really do care about freedom
of expression, and the flow of information, and the marketplace of ideas—you
might want to add at least a token panelist with a viewpoint that differs even
just a tiny bit from that of the nine Borg you’ve assembled to intone that
Amazon Is Evil and Will Destroy All That Is Good. Otherwise, your event is
going to feel more like a circle jerk and less like sex. And, doubtless, with similarly
productive results.

My Website

Follow by Feed

Follow by Email

Welcome

There are a lot of terrific blogs out there on the world of writing, but Heart of the Matter isn't one of them. HOTM primarily covers politics, language as it influences politics, and politics as an exercise in branding and marketing, with the occasional post on some miscellaneous subject that catches my attention.

HOTM has a comments section. Sounds simple enough, but as even a cursory glance at the comments of most political blogs will show, many people would benefit from some guidelines. Here are a few I hope will help.

1. The most important guideline when it comes to argument is the golden rule. If someone were addressing your point, what tone, what overall approach would you find persuasive and want her to use? Whatever that is, do it yourself. If you find this simple guideline difficult, I'll explain it slightly differently in #2.

2. Argue for persuasion, not masturbation. If you follow the golden rule above, it's because you're trying to persuade someone. If you instead choose sarcasm and other insults, you can't be trying to persuade (have you ever seen someone's opinion changed by an insult?). If you're not trying to persuade, what you're doing instead is stroking yourself. Now, stroking yourself is fine in private, but I think we can all agree it's a pretty pathetic to do so in public. So unless you like to come across as pathetic, argue to persuade.

3. Compared to the two above, this is just commentary, but: no one cares about your opinion (or mine, for that matter). It would be awesome to be so impressive that we could sway people to our way of thinking just by declaiming our thoughts, but probably most of us lack such gravitas. Luckily, there's something even better: evidence, logic, and argument. Think about it: when was the last time someone persuaded you of the rightness of his opinion just by declaring what it was? Probably it was the same time someone changed your mind with an insult, right? And like insults, naked declarations of opinion, because they can't persuade, are fundamentally masturbatory. And masturbation, again, is not a very polite thing to do on a blog.

Argue with others the way you'd like them to argue with you. Argue with intent to persuade. Argue with evidence and logic. That shouldn't be so hard, should it? Let's give it a try.